Legal Opinion
Prince v. Mallari
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided April 23, 2010No. 5D09-2365PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
Petitioners, Natalie Prince and Michael Prince [“Plaintiffs”], petition this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the circuit court that requires Natalie Prince to submit to a compulsory medical examination [“CME”] under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 in the presence of a videographer hired by and acting on behalf of counsel for Respondent, Ricardo Mallari [“Defendant”]. We grant the writ and quash the order.
Natalie Prince suffered injuries to her neck, back and foot in an accident. She and her husband sued Ricardo Mallari and Bernadett Mallari for her injuries.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Dodson v. PersellSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
- US SEC. Ins. Co. v. CiminoSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
- Gibson v. GibsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
- Stakley v. Allstate Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
- Byrd v. Southern Prestressed Concrete, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Scolaro v. ButlerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
- De Larocha v. FerrariDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
- Deal v. EcklundDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010